English Teachers Criticize National Reports' Focus on Basic Literacy

Detroit--Leaders in the field of English last week criticized the
various national reports on education for having focused their
discussions of the subject almost exclusively on its "service
functions."

By limiting their comments on English primarily to the issue of
basic literacy, the reports may have set the stage "for a return to the
kind of English that we taught 25 to 30 years ago, something that
wasn't particularly successful," said Stephen N. Tchudi, immediate past
president of the National Council of Teachers of English, during the
group's annual convention here.

"The reports appeared to be calling for more of the fundamentals,
for more drill and practice," Mr. Tchudi said. "If the reform reports
called simply for more literacy, for more reading and writing, I'd be
for that. But what I see is a call for more 'drill and skill,' for more
phonics, and I see that as a distraction."

Quality's Decline Presumed

According to Mr. Tchudi, who is a professor of education at Michigan
State University, the reform reports also appear to presume that the
quality of English instruction has declined.

"That is not a supportable position," he said. "Anyone who has
talked to English teachers in various parts of the United States, who
has visited their classrooms and talked with their students, can see
that English teachers know more about the nature of language and
language learning than they did formerly. They certainly know more
about, and are doing a better job of, teaching writing than they did as
recently as a decade ago."

No Focus on Literature

"We've had about 15 major reports on education so far, and with
possibly one or two exceptions they made no statement about the
teaching of literature," said James R. Squire, a senior vice president
of the publishing firm of Ginn & Company and chairman of the
n.c.t.e.'s Task Force on Excellence in English and the Language Arts.
"So little atten-tion was paid to it that I can foresee even less time
and attention devoted to the study of literature than at present."

According to Mr. Squire, "The reports dealt mainly with what I call
the service functions of English." The reason, he said, was because
those who conducted the studies "were much more concerned with the
study of mathematics, science, and technology, given the political and
economic importance of those fields."

"Literature conveys to students our accumulated knowledge and
values," Mr. Squire said. "One can-not teach about freedom in America
without transmitting what's best about America through literature."

Teaching and Learning

Seminar participants also criticized the education reports for
failing to address the processes of teaching and learning.

Eileen Lundy, professor of English classics and philosophy at the
University of Texas at San Antonio and chairman of n.c.t.e.'s
commission on the English curriculum, said she was one of six people
asked to testify before the National Commission on Excellence in
Education on the topic of English language and literature.

"I had not seen anyone else's testimony in advance and no one had
seen mine," she said. "By the end of the day's testimony, there was an
air of exaltation because we had all emphasized the importance of
processes--that is, not just what we learned, but how we learned.

"I saw no evidence of this in the excellence commission's report,"
Ms. Lundy continued. "The testimony just wasn't understood. I saw much
more emphasis in the report on what students should be doing. I have no
quarrel with that. But more of the same mediocrity will not produce
excellence."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.